Bulfinch Triangle Infill & Small Projects

[blade_bltz]

The owners of the parking lot have made a value judgement on the worth of people based on a vapid and shallow observation. That's why its objectionable.

I see, so if the SUV owner comes back the next day driving his friend's sedan, he'd still have to pay the 10%...cuz the parking lot's policy is discriminating against the PERSON himself.

 

[Justin7]

I feel dumber for having read this...of all the absurd political debates and tangents we've seen on this site, the Rosa Parks vs. SUVs has to be the most ridiculous...

Seriously. I realize the bar is set pretty high, but this probably the dumbest discussion I've seen here.

SUVs weigh more. Did everyone but me miss that? While the owners of this lot are snobs, that was their reason, and it is a legitimate one.

Thank you. This nonsense could have been avoided if people had just read the article (RTFA?).

Fuel-guzzling vehicles would pay more to park

By Jerry Kronenberg and Danielle Rivard

SUV and Jeep owners are seeing red over a planned Hub “green” parking lot that intends to charge customers who drive big vehicles a 10 percent “gas-guzzler” surcharge.

“Whatever car you buy is your choice, and they shouldn’t charge you more because you don’t have a hybrid or because you drive a gas-guzzler,” said Boston resident Christine Degregoria, who drives a Jeep Liberty.

Boston’s Dinosaur Capital Partners has cut a deal with California’s Streetline Inc. to outfit a planned Bulfinch Triangle parking lot with technology that will charge clients based on what they drive.


People who park hybrids or electric cars at the Green Park & Charge lot near TD Garden will get a 10 percent discount on the expected $10-an-hour rate.

But those who drive sport-utility vehicles or other rides that get fewer than 15 miles per gallon will pay a 10 percent penalty.

“We feel strongly that not only is this the right thing to do, but that we’ll attract customers who feel the same way,” Dinosaur Capital’s Scott Oran told the Herald.

“A big SUV has a cost both in terms of the environment and in terms of being a heavier vehicle that causes more wear and tear on our lot,” he said. “We think that should be reflected in our price.”

Dinosaur is spending $1.5 million to build its state-of-the-art facility, which will include four standard parking spaces and eight spots outfitted with free recharging stations for electric cars.

Oran said city officials working with Dinosaur on the project haven’t raised legal objections to the surcharges — even though the government is picking up the $50,000 tab for the charging stations.

“I don’t expect too many SUV owners will be ticked off, because they understand that they’re driving a car that costs more to operate and to park,” Oran said.

But some SUV owners interviewed yesterday in Bulfinch Triangle had their disapproval running on all eight cylinders.

GMC Sierra driver John Roberts said Dinosaur’s pricing plan “is not fair. It’s like they’re trying to make money off of people who are not environmentally conscious.”

However, Jeep Wrangler driver Ryan Reardon said: “I don’t think it’s going to matter really. People with gas-guzzlers will just park somewhere else.”

Essentially this boils down to "I have the right to drive any vehicle I'd like, but you don't have the right to charge me what you want to to park in your private lot. I heart capitalism when it works in my favor!"

Again, heavier vehicles cause the lot owners to incur more costs, so pay a little more, park somewhere else, or get a new vehicle.

 

[found5dollar]

^ thank you for saying exactly how I feel about this discussion. Did anyone else read that is for 12 parking spots, only 4 of which a non-electric car would be using. People on this board are getting outraged and declaring "racism" over only 4 parking spots with a discount for driving anything that won't put undo wear and tear on their lot. We have hit a new low here.

 

[KentXie]

Kent -- if there wasn't the tax on all of our electric bills that goes into a slush fund for "Green" -- then it would be up to the developer to do as they pleased -- but unfortunately - -we do pour money into the fund and it gets redistributed to benefit people who have the wherewithal to take advantage of the special deals

I have a neighbor who in the pre-Google era made a lot of money as a early employee of Lycos -- he's very green -- Solar panels on the roof, Electric Vehicle in the garage, ground source heat-pump in deep hole on the corner of his lot. i'm guessing he's green to the tune of $100,000 in investment. Without the subsidies -- his investments would never pay back -- but all of us have been conscripted to help his green-ness benefit him.

My apologies, but I do not know how any of what you said pertains to my post. The discount is not a government subsidy since it is levied by the parking lot owner. I was talking about how the owner could have better advertise this and how, from different perspectives, this "price discrimination" wouldn't have caused any outrage (hence the starbucks gold membership analogy).

 

[whighlander]

My apologies, but I do not know how any of what you said pertains to my post. The discount is not a government subsidy since it is levied by the parking lot owner. I was talking about how the owner could have better advertise this and how, from different perspectives, this "price discrimination" wouldn't have caused any outrage (hence the starbucks gold membership analogy).

Kent -- on the surface its the developer -- but underneath - the various Green Initiatives at the City, State, Federal levels all have an impact on these kinds of projects

Since the original PURPA -- if electricity and alternatives are involved -- then so are regulations and subsidies

 

[BostonUrbEx]

"I heart capitalism when it works in my favor!"

Society in America. In one simply quote.

 

[itchy]

Society in America. In one simply [sic] quote.

If the lot owner has a legitimate incremental cost (for maintenance, for instance) that he associates with "gas guzzlers," that's another question.

But I don't see how "using price discrimination against customer groups that I don't like for reasons that have nothing to do with my business" is a core feature of a functioning market. The comment you're agreeing with implies that it is.

 

[KentXie]

Kent -- on the surface its the developer -- but underneath - the various Green Initiatives at the City, State, Federal levels all have an impact on these kinds of projects

Since the original PURPA -- if electricity and alternatives are involved -- then so are regulations and subsidies

I do not think the owner is getting any sort of subsidy for this proposal, and the discussion is supposed to be on the surface. The article is not talking about any Green Initiatives on the government level so let's stick to the topic.

 

[kmp1284]

From the Herald article:

Oran said city officials working with Dinosaur on the project haven’t raised legal objections to the surcharges — even though the government is picking up the $50,000 tab for the charging stations.

 

[kmp1284]

Seriously. I realize the bar is set pretty high, but this probably the dumbest discussion I've seen here.

At least it's a discussion, this board has been pretty fucking anemic lately.

 

[SeamusMcFly]

Meh, I just like stirring the pot.

Also, the fact that SUV's are heavier as a legitimate reason for surcharging is not so legitimate.

SUV's are in general heavier, but they also have, in general, wider tires which offset the increased load. The point loading, or distributed load whare car meets pavement is virtually the same between many cars and SUV's.

 

[choo]

^ That's why the owner is charging +20% for unicycles.

 

[SeamusMcFly]

Well played.

 

[BostonObserver]

At some point can't the people involved in these 'conversations' move the conversation to a new thread. That's why there is general section!! How about some self policing. Has Ned Flaherty turned so many posters into his own personal zombies?

ArchBoston pretty much sucks these days.

 

[itchy]

^^ That would've been a great post for the General thread.

 

[JohnAKeith]

Wait, what?

There was a road going from City Square in Charlestown over to the road between the ol' Boston Industrial Building and Boston Garden that was replaced by the Central Artery and then the Tunnel??

I always wondered what the story was with those pilings you can see to the right of the Charlestown Bridge.

See larger image and story, here:

http://billwarner.posterous.com/what-connects-the-old-boston-garden-and-cheez

 

[JohnAKeith]

And, a history of the Bulfinch Triangle, courtesy of MIT.

http://architecture.mit.edu/class/city/projects03/bullfinch_triangle/assignment5.htm

 

[Charlie_mta]

Wait, what?

There was a road going from City Square in Charlestown over to the road between the ol' Boston Industrial Building and Boston Garden that was replaced by the Central Artery and then the Tunnel??

I always wondered what the story was with those pilings you can see to the right of the Charlestown Bridge.

Yeah, I used to see the old Warren Bridge back in the late 1950's, clearly visible from the old Charlestown elevated train when it crossed the Charles. By then the Warren Bridge was abandoned, supplanted by the Central Artery double-decked bridge. The abandoned Warren Bridge stood until the Charles River Dam was built in its place. The bridge had a wide timber deck and trolley car tracks still in place on the deck, which had been used by trolleys to and from Chelsea into the Brattle Loop tunnel at Scollay Square.

Those were the days, before the area was sanitized and suburbanized.

 

[JohnAKeith]

Hmmm. I swear there used to be traffic signs underneath that part of the Central Artery, the part right around that street area, next to the Boston Industrial Building (that was imploded, right?). I always wondered if there had been a street-level road open at one point underneath the bridge.

 

[Charlie_mta]

I saw the Warren Bridge several times in its abandoned state in the late 1950's, around 1959 probably. That would be only a few years after the Central Artery bridge was opened to traffic. So, it is possible that the Warren Bridge, connected to Beverly Street, stayed open for a couple of years after the Artery bridge opened. The placement of the old Central Artery's piers on Beverly Street certainly allowed room for a fully functional street connecting to the Warren Bridge.

The memory of the abandoned bridge is vivid in my mind, because as a kid I was so impressed by the wide wooden deck with the steel trolley tracks so visible against the deck. The center movable span was gone by the late 1950's when I used to see it as I rode the "El" across the North Washington Street Bidge. In older photos it looked like the surface had been asphalt paved, but by the late 1950's the timber decking showed.

The Warren Bridge was completely removed when the "new" Charles River dam was built in the 1970's.